Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Distilling Parallel Gradients for Fast ODE Solvers of Diffusion Models

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Parallel gradient evaluations at learned intermediate timesteps let a diffusion ODE solver reach state-of-the-art FID at the same latency as fewer-step baselines.

desk verdict Solid empirical gains from parallel learned gradients; the MVT-based theory overclaims and should be reframed. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14797 v1 pith:MSDNXOKN submitted 2025-07-20 cs.CV

Beier Zhu , Ruoyu Wang , Tong Zhao , Hanwang Zhang , Chi Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords diffusionmodelsODEsolversparallelsamplingtruncationerrordistillationimagegenerationFIDgenerativemodeling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a diffusion-model ODE solver can trade extra computation for better quality while keeping latency unchanged, by evaluating K gradients in parallel at learned intermediate timesteps per sampling step. The resulting Ensemble Parallel Direction (EPD) solver combines these gradients with a simplex-weighted sum, and distills only a handful of learnable parameters (the intermediate timesteps, weights, and small scale/timestep corrections) against a high-accuracy teacher trajectory. Because the K gradient evaluations are independent, they run concurrently, so the added computation costs no wall-clock time. At the same latency as a 5-step baseline, EPD reaches FID 4.47 on CIFAR-10, 7.97 on FFHQ, 8.17 on ImageNet, and 8.26 on LSUN Bedroom, and the same parallel-gradient idea can be plugged into existing solvers such as iPNDM.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is the EPD update rule, a numerical integration formula that replaces the standard rectangle or trapezoid rule with a simplex-weighted sum over $K$ parallel gradient evaluations at learned intermediate timesteps. Each branch computes its gradient from the same starting point $x_{t_{n+1}}$ via Euler's method, $x_{\tau^k_n} = x_{t_{n+1}} + (\tau^k_n - t_{n+1})\epsilon_\theta(x_{t_{n+1}}, t_{n+1})$, so all branches are independent and can be executed concurrently. The paper also inserts a learned output scale $(1+o_n)$ and per-branch timestep shifts $\delta^k_n$ to compensate for exposure bias, and wraps the whole update in a distillation loop that optimizes the small parameter set to match a teacher trajectory. The vector-valued mean value theorem is cited as the theoretical grounding, under which the exact integral can be represented as a convex combination of gradients at intermediate points.

What would settle it

On a fixed set of noise inputs, compare the one-step local error $\|x_{t_n}(\text{EPD}, K=2) - x_{t_n}(\text{true})\|$ against $\|x_{t_n}(\text{EPD}, K=1) - x_{t_n}(\text{true})\|$, where $x_{\text{true}}$ is computed with a dense 1000-step reference solver; the central claim implies the $K=2$ error is smaller for the large majority of steps and samples.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a one-step update of the probability-flow ODE, $x_{t_n} = x_{t_{n+1}} + \int_{t_{n+1}}^{t_n} \epsilon_\theta(x,t)\,dt$, can be approximated more accurately by a convex (simplex) combination of $K$ gradients evaluated at learned intermediate timesteps $\tau^k_n$, each obtained by a one-step Euler extrapolation from the starting state, than by the single-gradient or two-gradient rules used by existing solvers. The paper formulates the update as $x_{t_n} = x_{t_{n+1}} + (1+o_n) h_n \sum_{k=1}^K \lambda^k_n \epsilon_\theta(x_{\tau^k_n}, \tau^k_n + \delta^k_n)$, with non-negative weights summing to one, and cites a vector-valued mean value theorem that guarantees any vector-valued integral can be represented exactly as a simplex-weighted combination of gradients at intermediate points. The parameters $\{\tau, \lambda, \delta, o\}$ are tuned by distillation: a small student schedule of $N$ steps is trained to match teacher trajectories produced by DPM-Solver-2 with six inserted intermediate steps per interval, using $\ell^2$ distance in pixel space and in a feature space of a pretrained image classifier for the final clean image. The paper reports that $K=2$ already yields most of the benefit and does not increase inference latency on a single GPU.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a short student recipe using just two learned checkpoints per step can reproduce a longer teacher trajectory closely enough to improve FID; the cited theorem only guarantees this for many more checkpoints, so the method depends on the empirical fit succeeding.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At a fixed wall-clock latency, EPD-Solver with K=2 improves FID over single- and multi-step baselines across CIFAR-10, FFHQ, ImageNet, LSUN Bedroom, and Stable Diffusion, so parallel gradient evaluations effectively buy quality for free on parallel hardware.
  • Because EPD-Plugin wraps existing samplers (demonstrated with iPNDM), the parallel-gradient principle can be retrofitted onto other solver families rather than requiring a new solver from scratch.
  • The distillation is cheap, using between 6 and 45 scalar parameters and roughly 3–30 minutes of training, so the solver can be tuned per model or dataset without heavy compute.
  • The gains are concentrated in the low-NFE regime: at 3 Para. NFE on LSUN Bedroom, EPD reaches FID 13.21 versus 58.21 for the second-best baseline, where previous solvers degrade most.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension would be to replace the learned intermediate timesteps with the teacher's six inserted timesteps and see whether the FID gain comes from learned placement or from the parallel combination alone.
  • Because the learned parameters are global and shared across samples, conditioning them on the current noise level or input statistics could make the intermediate points sample-adaptive, at a small latency cost.
  • The latency claim is hardware-dependent; on hardware without enough parallel compute units, K=2 would cost nearly double the NFE time, so the algorithm's benefit is best evaluated with a stated compute budget.
  • Since K=2 captures most of the gain, an interesting experiment is to test whether the same two-branch idea helps other sequential samplers beyond iPNDM, such as predictor-corrector or exponential-integrator families.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the Ensemble Parallel Direction (EPD-Solver), an ODE solver for diffusion models that approximates each integration step by a convex combination of K gradient evaluations at learned intermediate timesteps, with intermediate states obtained by Euler extrapolation. The parameters (intermediate timestep ratios, simplex weights, timestep shifts, and output scaling) are optimized by distilling the trajectory of a teacher ODE solver (DPM-Solver-2 with six injected substeps) on 10k images. The method is also extended as a plugin to iPNDM. Experiments on CIFAR-10, FFHQ, ImageNet, LSUN Bedroom, and Stable Diffusion report FID improvements over existing solvers at 3-9 (parallel) NFE with no measurable latency increase for K=2, and the paper includes learned-parameter tables and code.

Significance. If the empirical findings hold, this is a practically valuable contribution: it shows that multiple parallel gradient evaluations, with only a few dozen global learnable parameters, can improve few-step sampling quality without wall-clock overhead, and that the idea can be injected into existing samplers. The paper provides extensive evaluation across four pixel/latent datasets and Stable Diffusion, releases code, and documents all learned parameters, which aids reproducibility. The theoretical justification, however, is not sound as stated: the cited mean value theorem does not cover the K<d, Euler-extrapolated setting, so the method's value rests on the distillation results rather than on a proven solver-theoretic property. The empirical evidence is strong and consistent, but the framing should be corrected.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Theorem 1, Eq. (9)] The vector-valued mean value theorem of McLeod guarantees an exact simplex representation of the integral using d points on the true trajectory, where d is the dimension of the codomain (e.g., the image or latent dimension). The proposed update in Eq. (9) instead uses K learnable points (K=2 or 3) evaluated at Euler-extrapolated states x_{\tau_k^n} = x_{t_{n+1}} + (\tau_k^n - t_{n+1}) \epsilon_\theta(x_{t_{n+1}}, t_{n+1}). Theorem 1 therefore does not imply that Eq. (9) reduces truncation error or is "grounded" in the theorem, as claimed in Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 3.3. This is load-bearing because the paper characterizes EPD as a theoretically motivated solver; the actual support is the empirical distillation fit. I recommend rewriting this motivation as a heuristic (e.g., multi-point quadrature) and not claiming error guarantees from Theorem 1.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, Table 1] All FID results are reported as single point estimates without variance, confidence intervals, or repeated runs. This matters for the "state-of-the-art" claim at moderate NFE where margins are small (e.g., CIFAR-10 at 9 NFE: EPD-Solver 2.49 vs. AMED-Plugin 2.63; ImageNet at 9 NFE: EPD-Solver 4.27 vs. AMED-Plugin 5.60 is larger). The large low-NFE margins (e.g., 13.21 vs. 58.21 on LSUN at 3 NFE) are unlikely to be reversed by sampling noise, but the paper should report variance or at least state the evaluation protocol (number of seeds, batch composition) to allow the reader to judge significance. This does not undermine the central result, but it is needed for a journal-level claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract reports FID 4.47 on CIFAR-10, which in Table 1(a) is the EPD-Plugin value (4.47), while EPD-Solver achieves 4.33 at Para. NFE=5. Please clarify which variant is being quoted.
  2. [Table 1 headers and Sec. 4.1] The table columns are labeled "NFE" in the table while the text and captions use "(Para.) NFE". Use one consistent notation and define "Para. NFE" clearly; for K>1 the actual number of gradient evaluations per step is K, but latency is comparable to a single evaluation due to parallelism.
  3. [Sec. 1 and Sec. 3.2, parameter count] The text says the learnable parameter count "ranging from 6 to 45", but Eq. (11) and Algorithm 1 give N(1+3K) parameters; for N=9 and K=2 this is 63, and for N=5 and K=2 it is 35. Please correct the stated range or clarify what is counted (e.g., excluding the simplex weights or only counting certain per-branch parameters).
  4. [Sec. 4.1, teacher trajectory] Please specify how the teacher trajectory is generated relative to the student schedule: are the teacher states stored at all student timesteps, and are the M=6 intermediate steps inserted only for the teacher solve? The current sentence is ambiguous.
  5. [Figure 3] The caption says "ℓ2 error between teacher and student trajectory w.r.t. K" but does not define the error; specify whether it is averaged over samples, normalized, and computed at the final student state or over all time steps.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: EPD's parameters are fit by distillation to an external teacher trajectory and are evaluated on external FID benchmarks; the McLeod MVT citation is an overclaim, not a self-referential input.

full rationale

The central claim is empirical: EPD optimizes a small set of scalars (timesteps, weights, scale, shift) to minimize ℓ2 distance to DPM-Solver-2 teacher states (Eq. 12, Algorithm 1), then reports FID on standard benchmarks (Tables 1-2). The FID target is external and is not defined by the solver's own update equations. The vector-valued mean value theorem (Theorem 1, ref [28]) is used only as motivation; it does not set the learned parameters, and the gap between the theorem's d-point exact representation and the K=2 learned update on Euler-extrapolated states is a theoretical overclaim, not a circular reduction. The qualitative trajectory analysis (Fig. 5) uses the teacher trajectory as the distillation target, so it is a fitted check rather than independent evidence, but it is not load-bearing for the headline FID claims. The only self-citation [16] is an intro example of image synthesis and is not load-bearing. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to its empirical evaluation, and no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on learned parameters fitted by distillation, on a weak application of the mean value theorem, and on an empirical latency assumption. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced beyond the solver formulation itself.

free parameters (5)
  • intermediate timestep ratios r_k^n = range 0.003 to 0.997 (see Tables 8-11)
    Learned via Eq. (13) to select gradient evaluation points; fitted by distillation to match teacher trajectory.
  • simplex weights lambda_k^n = e.g., 0.85/0.15 on CIFAR-10 NFE=3
    Softmax-weighted combination of parallel gradients; fitted to match teacher.
  • timestep shift scale s_k^n = range 0.80 to 1.11
    Learned timestep perturbation to mitigate exposure bias; constrained to [0.95,1.05] nominally but some fitted values exceed range in supplementary tables.
  • per-branch output scale sigma_k^n = range 0.95 to 1.05
    Learned output scaling; constrained to [-0.05,0.05] around 1.
  • parallel direction count K = 2
    Chosen by hand based on Fig. 3/4; observed diminishing returns for K>2.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Vector-valued mean value theorem (McLeod 1965)
    Invoked to justify simplex-weighted combination of gradients; theorem is standard but applies to true trajectory, not Euler-extrapolated states.
  • domain assumption The denoising network accurately approximates the score function, epsilon_theta(x,t) approx -t * grad_x log p(x;t)
    Standard in diffusion sampling; needed for Eq. (3) to represent the probability flow ODE.
  • domain assumption The teacher trajectory (DPM-Solver-2 with M=6 inserted steps) provides a reliable distillation target
    If the teacher is biased, the distilled student inherits the bias; no independent validation of teacher accuracy is provided.
  • domain assumption Parallel gradient evaluations do not increase wall-clock latency
    Empirically verified for K=2 in Table 3, but not guaranteed across models, batch sizes, or hardware; degrades for LSUN with K=3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distilling Parallel Gradients for Fast ODE Solvers of Diffusion Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MSDNXOKN

@misc{pith2026250714797,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distilling Parallel Gradients for Fast ODE Solvers of Diffusion Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MSDNXOKN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14797}
}
read the original abstract

Diffusion models (DMs) have achieved state-of-the-art generative performance but suffer from high sampling latency due to their sequential denoising nature. Existing solver-based acceleration methods often face image quality degradation under a low-latency budget. In this paper, we propose the Ensemble Parallel Direction solver (dubbed as \ours), a novel ODE solver that mitigates truncation errors by incorporating multiple parallel gradient evaluations in each ODE step. Importantly, since the additional gradient computations are independent, they can be fully parallelized, preserving low-latency sampling. Our method optimizes a small set of learnable parameters in a distillation fashion, ensuring minimal training overhead. In addition, our method can serve as a plugin to improve existing ODE samplers. Extensive experiments on various image synthesis benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our \ours~in achieving high-quality and low-latency sampling. For example, at the same latency level of 5 NFE, EPD achieves an FID of 4.47 on CIFAR-10, 7.97 on FFHQ, 8.17 on ImageNet, and 8.26 on LSUN Bedroom, surpassing existing learning-based solvers by a significant margin. Codes are available in https://github.com/BeierZhu/EPD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14797 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of various solvers on diffusion models. We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Computation graphs of various ODE solvers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ℓ2 error between teacher and student trajectory w.r.t. K. as EPD-Plugin. Due to space limitations, a detailed de￾scription is deferred to Suppl. A.2. 3.3. Discussion Discussion with multi-step solvers. While multi-step solvers [21, 24, 50, 51] also use multiple gradients to approx￾imate the integral, they typically rely on Taylor expansion or polynomial extrapolation to linearly combine historical gradients. In cont… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FID curves for different datasets and the number of parallel directions ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Analysis on local sampling trajectory. The figure shows the generation path of two randomly selected pixels in the images. We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of generated samples among DPM-Solver-2 [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of image generation quality between DPM-Solver++ (2M) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative result on CIFAR10 32×32 (\text {3} and \text {9} NFEs) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative result on FFHQ 64×64 (\text {3} and \text {9} NFEs) (a) DPM-Solver-2. NFE=\text {3} (b) DPM-Solver-2. NFE=\text {9} (c) \texttt {EPD-Solver}. Para. NFE=\text {3} (d) \texttt {EPD-Solver}. Para. NFE=\text {9} [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qualitative result on ImageNet 64×64 (\text {3} and \text {9} NFEs) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tract: Denoising diffusion models with transitive closure time-distillation

    David Berthelot, Arnaud Autef, Jierui Lin, Dian Ang Yap, Shuangfei Zhai, Siyuan Hu, Daniel Zheng, Walter Talbott, and Eric Gu. Tract: Denoising diffusion models with transitive closure time-distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04248,

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Align your latents: High-resolution video synthesis with la- tent diffusion models

    Andreas Blattmann, Robin Rombach, Huan Ling, Tim Dock- horn, Seung Wook Kim, Sanja Fidler, and Karsten Kreis. Align your latents: High-resolution video synthesis with la- tent diffusion models. In CVPR, 2023. 1

    2023

  3. [3]

    On the trajectory regularity of ode-based diffusion sampling

    Defang Chen, Zhenyu Zhou, Can Wang, Chunhua Shen, and Siwei Lyu. On the trajectory regularity of ode-based diffusion sampling. In ICML, pages 7905–7934, 2024. 3, 5

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Asyncdiff: Parallelizing diffusion models by asynchronous denoising

    Zigeng Chen, Xinyin Ma, Gongfan Fang, Zhenxiong Tan, and Xinchao Wang. Asyncdiff: Parallelizing diffusion models by asynchronous denoising. In NeurIPS, 2024. 1, 3

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Genie: Higher-order denoising diffusion solvers

    Tim Dockhorn, Arash Vahdat, and Karsten Kreis. Genie: Higher-order denoising diffusion solvers. In NeurIPS, 2022. 4, 5

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Generative adversarial nets

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. NeurIPS, 2014. 2

    2014

  7. [7]

    Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models. In NeurIPS, 2020. 1

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Video diffusion models

    Jonathan Ho, Tim Salimans, Alexey Gritsenko, William Chan, Mohammad Norouzi, and David J Fleet. Video diffusion models. In NeurIPS, 2022. 1

    work page 2022

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, and Timo Aila. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. In CVPR, 2019. 2, 5, 6, 12, 14

    2019

  2. [10]

    Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models

    Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Timo Aila, and Samuli Laine. Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models. In NeurIPS, 2022. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11

    2022

  3. [11]

    Consistency trajectory models: Learning probability flow ode trajectory of diffusion

    Dongjun Kim, Chieh-Hsin Lai, Wei-Hsiang Liao, Naoki Mu- rata, Yuhta Takida, Toshimitsu Uesaka, Yutong He, Yuki Mit- sufuji, and Stefano Ermon. Consistency trajectory models: Learning probability flow ode trajectory of diffusion. InICLR,

  4. [12]

    Distilling ode solvers of diffusion models into smaller steps

    Sanghwan Kim, Hao Tang, and Fisher Yu. Distilling ode solvers of diffusion models into smaller steps. In CVPR,

  5. [13]

    Auto-encoding vari- ational bayes, 2013

    Diederik P Kingma, Max Welling, et al. Auto-encoding vari- ational bayes, 2013. 2

    2013

  6. [14]

    Diffwave: A versatile diffusion model for audio synthesis

    Zhifeng Kong, Wei Ping, Jiaji Huang, Kexin Zhao, and Bryan Catanzaro. Diffwave: A versatile diffusion model for audio synthesis. In ICLR, 2021. 1

    2021

  7. [15]

    Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images

    Alex Krizhevsky, Geoffrey Hinton, et al. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. Technical Report, 2009. 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14

    2009

  8. [16]

    Stylestudio: Text-driven style transfer with selective control of style elements

    Mingkun Lei, Xue Song, Beier Zhu, Hao Wang, and Chi Zhang. Stylestudio: Text-driven style transfer with selective control of style elements. In CVPR, 2025. 1

    2025

  9. [17]

    Distrifusion: Distributed parallel inference for high-resolution diffusion models

    Muyang Li, Tianle Cai, Jiaxin Cao, Qinsheng Zhang, Han Cai, Junjie Bai, Yangqing Jia, Kai Li, and Song Han. Distrifusion: Distributed parallel inference for high-resolution diffusion models. In CVPR, 2024. 1, 3

    2024

  10. [18]

    Alleviating exposure bias in diffusion mod- els through sampling with shifted time steps

    Mingxiao Li, Tingyu Qu, Ruicong Yao, Wei Sun, and Marie- Francine Moens. Alleviating exposure bias in diffusion mod- els through sampling with shifted time steps. In ICLR, 2024. 4, 7

    2024

  11. [19]

    Faster diffusion: Rethinking the role of the encoder for diffusion model inference

    Senmao Li, taihang Hu, Joost van de Weijer, Fahad Khan, Tao Liu, Linxuan Li, Shiqi Yang, Yaxing Wang, Ming-Ming Cheng, and jian Yang. Faster diffusion: Rethinking the role of the encoder for diffusion model inference. In NeurIPS, 2024. 1, 3

    2024

  12. [20]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Doll´ar, and C Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In ECCV, 2014. 5

    2014

  13. [21]

    Pseudo numerical methods for diffusion models on manifolds

    Luping Liu, Yi Ren, Zhijie Lin, and Zhou Zhao. Pseudo numerical methods for diffusion models on manifolds. In ICLR, 2022. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11

    2022

  14. [22]

    Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow

    Xingchao Liu, Chengyue Gong, et al. Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow. In ICLR, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  15. [23]

    Dpm-solver: A fast ode solver for diffusion probabilistic model sampling in around 10 steps

    Cheng Lu, Yuhao Zhou, Fan Bao, Jianfei Chen, Chongxuan Li, and Jun Zhu. Dpm-solver: A fast ode solver for diffusion probabilistic model sampling in around 10 steps. In NeurIPS,

  16. [24]

    Dpm-solver++: Fast solver for guided sampling of diffusion probabilistic models

    Cheng Lu, Yuhao Zhou, Fan Bao, Jianfei Chen, Chongx- uan Li, and Jun Zhu. Dpm-solver++: Fast solver for guided sampling of diffusion probabilistic models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01095, 2022. 1, 3, 5, 6

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Knowledge distillation in it- erative generative models for improved sampling speed.arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.02388, 2021

    Eric Luhman and Troy Luhman. Knowledge distillation in it- erative generative models for improved sampling speed.arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.02388, 2021. 1, 2

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Diffusion probabilistic models for 3d point cloud generation

    Shitong Luo and Wei Hu. Diffusion probabilistic models for 3d point cloud generation. In CVPR, 2021. 1

    2021

  19. [27]

    Latent consistency models: Synthesizing high- resolution images with few-step inference

    Simian Luo, Yiqin Tan, Longbo Huang, Jian Li, and Hang Zhao. Latent consistency models: Synthesizing high- resolution images with few-step inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04378, 2023. 1, 2

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Mean value theorems for vector val- ued functions

    Robert M McLeod. Mean value theorems for vector val- ued functions. Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society, 14(3):197–209, 1965. 4

    1965

  21. [29]

    On distilla- tion of guided diffusion models

    Chenlin Meng, Robin Rombach, Ruiqi Gao, Diederik Kingma, Stefano Ermon, Jonathan Ho, and Tim Salimans. On distilla- tion of guided diffusion models. In CVPR, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  22. [30]

    Elucidating the exposure bias in diffusion models

    Mang Ning, Mingxiao Li, Jianlin Su, Albert Ali Salah, and Itir Onal Ertugrul. Elucidating the exposure bias in diffusion models. In ICLR, 2024. 4, 7

    2024

  23. [31]

    Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion

    Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, Jonathan T Barron, and Ben Mildenhall. Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion. In ICLR, 2023. 2

    2023

  24. [32]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In CVPR, 2022. 1, 2, 5, 6

    2022

  25. [33]

    Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge

    Olga Russakovsky, Jia Deng, Hao Su, Jonathan Krause, San- jeev Satheesh, Sean Ma, Zhiheng Huang, Andrej Karpathy, Aditya Khosla, Michael Bernstein, et al. Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. IJCV, 115:211–252, 2015. 2, 5, 6, 13, 15

    2015

  26. [34]

    Align your steps: Optimizing sampling schedules in diffusion mod- els

    Amirmojtaba Sabour, Sanja Fidler, and Karsten Kreis. Align your steps: Optimizing sampling schedules in diffusion mod- els. In ICML, 2024. 3

    2024

  27. [35]

    Pho- torealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily L Denton, Kamyar Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, et al. Pho- torealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. In NeurIPS, 2022. 1

    2022

  28. [36]

    Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models

    Tim Salimans and Jonathan Ho. Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models. In ICLR, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  29. [37]

    Adversarial diffusion distillation

    Axel Sauer, Dominik Lorenz, Andreas Blattmann, and Robin Rombach. Adversarial diffusion distillation. In ECCV, 2024. 2

    2024

  30. [38]

    Parallel sampling of diffusion models

    Andy Shih, Suneel Belkhale, Stefano Ermon, Dorsa Sadigh, and Nima Anari. Parallel sampling of diffusion models. NeurIPS, 2023. 1, 3, 5, 6, 11

    2023

  31. [39]

    Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In ICML, 2015. 1

    2015

  32. [40]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. In ICLR, 2021. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8

    2021

  33. [41]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Ab- hishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. In ICLR, 2021. 3

    2021

  34. [42]

    Consistency models

    Yang Song, Prafulla Dhariwal, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. Consistency models. In ICML, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  35. [43]

    Going deeper with convolutions

    Christian Szegedy, Wei Liu, Yangqing Jia, Pierre Sermanet, Scott Reed, Dragomir Anguelov, Dumitru Erhan, Vincent Vanhoucke, and Andrew Rabinovich. Going deeper with convolutions. In CVPR, 2015. 4

    2015

  36. [44]

    Learning to discretize denoising diffusion odes

    Vinh Tong, Trung-Dung Hoang, Anji Liu, Guy Van den Broeck, and Mathias Niepert. Learning to discretize denoising diffusion odes. In ICLR, 2025. 3

    2025

  37. [45]

    Prolificdreamer: High-fidelity and diverse text-to-3d generation with variational score distilla- tion

    Zhengyi Wang, Cheng Lu, Yikai Wang, Fan Bao, Chongxuan Li, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. Prolificdreamer: High-fidelity and diverse text-to-3d generation with variational score distilla- tion. NeurIPS, 2023. 2

    2023

  38. [46]

    Learning fast samplers for diffusion models by differentiating through sample quality

    Daniel Watson, William Chan, Jonathan Ho, and Mohammad Norouzi. Learning fast samplers for diffusion models by differentiating through sample quality. In ICLR, 2022. 1, 3

    2022

  39. [47]

    Accelerating dif- fusion sampling with optimized time steps

    Shuchen Xue, Zhaoqiang Liu, Fei Chen, Shifeng Zhang, Tianyang Hu, Enze Xie, and Zhenguo Li. Accelerating dif- fusion sampling with optimized time steps. In CVPR, 2024. 3

    2024

  40. [48]

    One-step diffusion with distribution matching distillation

    Tianwei Yin, Micha ¨el Gharbi, Richard Zhang, Eli Shecht- man, Fredo Durand, William T Freeman, and Taesung Park. One-step diffusion with distribution matching distillation. In CVPR, 2024. 2

    2024

  41. [49]

    Lsun: Construction of a large-scale image dataset using deep learning with humans in the loop

    Fisher Yu, Ari Seff, Yinda Zhang, Shuran Song, Thomas Funkhouser, and Jianxiong Xiao. Lsun: Construction of a large-scale image dataset using deep learning with humans in the loop. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.03365, 2015. 2, 5, 6, 13, 15

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Fast sampling of diffu- sion models with exponential integrator

    Qinsheng Zhang and Yongxin Chen. Fast sampling of diffu- sion models with exponential integrator. In ICLR, 2023. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11

    2023

  43. [51]

    Unipc: A unified predictor-corrector framework for fast sampling of diffusion models

    Wenliang Zhao, Lujia Bai, Yongming Rao, Jie Zhou, and Jiwen Lu. Unipc: A unified predictor-corrector framework for fast sampling of diffusion models. In NeurIPS, 2024. 3, 5, 6

    2024

  44. [52]

    Fast ode-based sampling for diffusion models in around 5 steps

    Zhenyu Zhou, Defang Chen, Can Wang, and Chun Chen. Fast ode-based sampling for diffusion models in around 5 steps. In CVPR, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6

    2024

  45. [53]

    Simple and fast distillation of diffusion models

    Zhenyu Zhou, Defang Chen, Can Wang, Chun Chen, and Siwei Lyu. Simple and fast distillation of diffusion models. NeurIPS, 2025. 1, 2 A. Additional Implementation Details A.1. Implementation Details of EPD-Solver At each sampling step n (from tn+1 to tn) in an N-step process, th...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.